Analysis · Reply to a comment · beta

Judy A. Sgro

Liberal on Government Orders 2026-06-03

104 words · 2 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Brad Vis (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, at the amendment stage, Conservatives put forward CPC-13, which would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting a notwithstanding clause, while also preventing those offences from benefiting from the bill’s mandatory minimum safety valve. I know the member to be an hon. member. I still cannot get around the fact that the Liberals would not support these Conservative amendments, which would have protected the most vulnerable in our society and ensured a level of justice for victims of child pornography. I still cannot get my head around the fact that the government will not support these measures.”

Statement grade

B–

73 / 100, held down by Clarity

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Thanks 18%Reasoning 38%Claims 43%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 19 wordsI know my colleague is very serious about the concerns he has, as well as the rest of us, ThanksReasoning · 27 wordsbut when members are on the government side of the House and crafting legislation, we have to make sure that it is going to withstand charter challenges.Vague promise Claims · 45 wordsWe have seen too many times that we have reacted with our hearts, not necessarily with our heads, Unearned certaintyand brought in things that ended up being challenged, with court cases thrown out completely because the legislation we introduced reflected our emotions, not necessarily our responsibility, Reasoning · 13 wordswhich is to make sure that the laws of the land are charter-proof.

At a glance

Lost points for
VagueMuch of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 77

2 of 4 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I know my colleague is very serious about the concerns he has,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “as well as the rest of us,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 4 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the comment put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 43

2 of 4 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we have to make sure that it is going to withstand charter challenges”A commitment by the speaker’s side with no measure, date or success condition named.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “We have seen too many times”The phrase asserts a repeated pattern in place of citing any instance or source.

Claims · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20